The Complainant (Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co.KG). is German family-owned pharmaceutical group of companies with roots going back to 1885, when it was founded by Albert Boehringer (1861-1939) in Ingelheim am Rhein.<\/p>\n
The Complainant uses the TRADJENTA trademark in connection with preparations for a treatment of type 2 diabetes.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <tradjentagoodrx.com> was registered on 14 April 2023 and is held by the Respondent.<\/p>\n
The domain name website (i.e. website available under internet address containing the disputed domain name) is not genuinely used and merely redirect to a third party parking page with various commercial links.<\/p>\n
The Complainant seeks transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
- The Complainant’s trademark is used at least on the US market and enjoy reputation. Past Panels have confirmed the notoriety of the trademark consisting of the term \"TRADJENTA\" in various UDRP cases.<\/p>\n
- The disputed domain name contains “GOOD” and “RX” word elements, and it is thus almost identical (i.e. confusing similarity) to Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
- As for the first disputed domain name, an addition of generic terms “GOOD ” and “RX” is not sufficient to escape confusingly similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
- Such addition does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its domain names associated.<\/p>\n
- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/p>\n
Thus, according to the Complainant the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain names is clearly established.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
- The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
- The Complainant has not authorized, permitted or licensed the Respondent to use Complainant’s trademark in any manner. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant whatsoever. On this record, Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
- Furthermore, the disputed domain name links to a parking page. Therefore, the Complainant contends that Respondent has not made any genuine use of disputed domain name since its registration, and it confirms that Respondent has no demonstrable plan to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/p>\n
Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that:<\/p>\n
- Priority of the Complainant's trademark predates the disputed domain name registration and such trademark is well known in relevant business circles. The Respondent can be considered to be aware of the Complainant's trademark when registering the domain name due to use thereof, which should have been checked by the Respondent by performing a simple internet search.<\/p>\n
- The disputed domain name (at the time of filing of the complaint) resolve to a mere parking site with no genuine content. In the light of the foregoing, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used with the sole purpose of selling the disputed domain name to the Complainant or a third party. <\/p>\n
- The Complainant refers to previous domain name decisions in this regard.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent has not provided any response to the complaint.<\/p>", "rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Jiří Čermák" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-06-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is a registered owner of the following trademark containing a word element \"TRADJENTA”:<\/p>\n
(i) TRADJENTA (word), US National Trademark, registration date 21 January 2011, trademark no. 4103139, registered for goods in the international class 5.<\/p>\n
(referred to as \"Complainant's trademark\").<\/p>\n
The Complainant has also registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (\"gTLD\") and country-code Top-Level Domains (\"ccTLD\") containing the terms “TRADJENTA”, for example domain name <tradjenta.com> used by the Complainant to offer and promote products under the TRADJENTA brand (tablets for treatment of type 2 diabetes).<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "tradjentagoodrx.com": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }